HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27837 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer notice to the informant has been served on 18.08.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 232 of 2025, under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS read with Section 5(m)(F)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Shikarpur, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has next stated that allegations have been subsequently foisted on the applicant which is evident from the fact that earlier on after the FIR, the victim had refused her medical examination but subsequently, medical examination was conducted on 01.07.2025 and one injury was found in the anal region of the victim but the said injury was fresh which indicates that every effort has been made by the informant to get the applicant behind the bars by all means. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Mishra, Devendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suaib .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and the medical examination having been conducted after 11 days of the incident coupled by the fact that in the said medical report, one injury was found fresh, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Suaib, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 11, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 27837 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad